9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1126 - HC - Income TaxNon collection of TCS on sale of brass scrap - non-furnishing of Form 27C to the respective Commissioner - Held that - Considering the fact that the information on record was incomplete and did not fully demonstrate the facts, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify and examine the facts of the case of the assessee and decide the same in accordance with the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P) Ltd., (2016 (7) TMI 68 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has merely restored the matter to the Assessing Officer as the information on record was incomplete and did not fully demonstrate the facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal gives rise to any question of law
Issues:
Challenge to order under section 260A of the Income Tax Act - Restoration of issue relating to section 206C(6) and section 206C(7) - Non-collection of TCS on sale of brass scrap - Non-furnishing of Form 27C to Commissioner - Assessment year 2013-14. Analysis: 1. The appellant revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, regarding the restoration of the issue related to section 206C(6) and section 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act. The main contention was whether the Tribunal erred in law by restoring the issue despite the assessee not collecting TCS on the sale of brass scrap and not furnishing Form 27C to the Commissioner. 2. The Assessing Officer had passed an order under section 206C(6A) and 206C(7) stating that the assessee did not collect TCS on the sale of brass scrap as required by section 206C(1). The assessee's explanation was not accepted, leading to the conclusion that the assessee was liable for penalty under section 206C(6) and interest under section 206C(7) of the Act. 3. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who noted that the assessee had submitted Form 27C to the office of the Principal CIT, albeit late. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Tribunal decision stating that once the declaration in Form 27C was received, the assessee could not be treated as in default for non-collection of TCS. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. 4. The revenue further appealed to the Tribunal, which found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not mention relevant details about the submission of Form 27 by the assessee. Due to incomplete information on record, the Tribunal referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification based on principles from a High Court case. The revenue was aggrieved by this decision. 5. The senior advocate for the appellant requested the court to direct the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of Form 27C submitted by the assessee after a delay of four years from the relevant financial year. 6. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had only sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer due to incomplete information, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. 7. The High Court reiterated that the Assessing Officer could verify the genuineness of Form 27C during assessment, and dismissed the appeal due to the absence of any legal question. In conclusion, the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal as it found no substantial question of law in the matter, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's authority to verify the genuineness of Form 27C during assessment.
|
